Gee, if only the party that says it most adores our nation's military would take note!
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Navy Rear Admiral: DoD preparing for climate change
Republicans can call global warming science "political" all they want, but the U.S. Military cannot afford to be so blithe about the real effects of real climate change. Hence they are getting prepared.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Pentagon is planning for global warming
This libertarian, Koch- and Hagel-loving Nazi that I correspond with blamed this story on President Obama, of course. So I told him that he had sorely underestimated our nation's military. Why?
Because our military can't afford to engage in short-term corporate thinking where the C-levels and middle managers still make out if it all goes to shit. We have islands sinking, military bases flooding, unrest and potential wars over fresh water resources... the U.S. military must understand and plan for all of it, regardless of his dumb corporate/FOX news agenda of denying what's happening. They can't afford denial; they must be right.
Incidentally, is it any wonder that rah-rah military guy Sen. John McCain of all Republicans gets it? He said if the scientists are wrong about global warming then the costs are manageable and we get all these wonderful sustainable energy technologies to boot; but if we're wrong, and unprepared, the costs will be ginormous and the consequences unpredictable and unmanageable.
Unlike some other liberals I have a lot of respect for the U.S. military, not least because they are the most forward-thinking, long-term planning organization you will find in the world. Sure, some of the generals have cushy corporate or lobbying jobs waiting for them when they jump ship, but as an organization it's all about the mission, and how they define potential threats and safety are not determined by the POTUS; these are concepts always in flux and under their monitoring.
By Suzanne Goldenberg
October 13, 2014 | Guardian
Saturday, October 11, 2014
News digest / Catching up on news (10.11.2014)
I've been busy lately for personal reasons, but also my laptop was out of commission for a week thanks to my 2-year-old (see photo), so below are some stories that deserved more attention than I was able to give them. If you've read these then you know (some of) what I do. Enjoy!
 |
| It took her about 2 minutes to do that. God love her, the little s--t. |
"Scott Walker lost his fight for voter ID. He's still everything that's wrong with the GOP," By Arvina Martin, October 10, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/42a3m ANOTHER MAD TEA PARTY EXPERIMENT BLOWING UP IN THEIR FACES... CONTAINED AT THE STATE LEVEL, THANKFULLY.
"The War Nerd: Technology, culture wars & jihad," By Gary Brecher, October 9, 2014, Pando Daily. URL:http://pando.com/2014/10/09/
"Bill de Blasio: From Education to Poverty, Leadership by Example," By Richard (RJ) Eskow, October 9, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1vR5knB
"Millennials Are Blue Now, But Party Allegiance Could Be Up For Grabs," By Mara Liasson, October 9, 2014, NPR. URL:http://n.pr/1vRcyIo
"Will China Spark a Currency War?" By William Pesek, October 8, 2014, Bloomberg. URL: http://www.bloombergview.com/
"Time for a Guaranteed Income?" By Veronique de Rugy, March 2014 issue, Reason. URL: http://reason.com/archives/
"Voter Registration Rises In Ferguson Since Death Of Michael Brown (UPDATE)," By Igor Bobic, October 7, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1rPw4FO
"Some Americans Boosted Charitable Giving In Recession; The Rich Did Not," By Bill Chappell, October 6, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1CPvxHk CHARITY WORKS THE LEAST WHEN IT'S NEEDED MOST -- TIME TO STOP RELYING ON IT, IT'S JUST A FEEL-GOOD OUTLET FOR THE FORTUNATE.
"Why would anyone want to talk on the phone ever again?" By Jess Zimmerman, October 6, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/426qh AGREED: PHONES ARE ANNOYING AND INTRUSIVE.
"Firestone Did What Governments Have Not: Stopped Ebola In Its Tracks," By Jason Beaubien, October 6, 2014., NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1COVoPL UMM... NOT SURE WHAT TO THINK ABOUT THIS ONE. KUDOS TO THE COMPANY FOR WANTING ITS WORKERS NOT TO DIE? WELL OK THEN.
"How the Russian Orthodox Church answers Putin's prayers in Ukraine," By Gabriela Baczynska and Tom Heneghan, October 6, 2014, Reuters. URL: http://www.reuters.com/
"Voodoo Economics, the Next Generation," By Paul Krugman, October 5, 2014, New York Times. URL: http://huff.to/1s49pG2 DYNAMICALLY SCORE THIS!
"Oceans Getting Hotter Than Anybody Realized," By John Upton, October 5, 2014, Climate Central. URL:http://www.climatecentral.org/
"Vatican Synod Tests The Pope's Vision Of A More Merciful Church," By Sylvia Poggioli, October 5, 2014, NPR. URL:http://n.pr/Z3PBqc
"Ten Reasons Why Russia Could Invade Ukraine Before Winter – Thoughts from Kiev," By Mychailo Wynnyckyj, October 3, 2014, Circus Bazaar. URL: http://www.circusbazaar.com/
"Even if we defeat the Islamic State, we’ll still lose the bigger war," By Andrew J. Bacevich, October 3, 2014, Washington Post. URL:
http://wapo.st/1vlnuxk NOBODY GETS THIS. IT'S LIKE TALKING TO A BRICK WALL.
"Regarding political differences, just blame biology," By Cynthia M. Allen, October 3, 2014, McClatchy DC. URL:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
"Can US Support for Ukraine Help Prevent a New Russian Invasion?" By James Rupert, October 3, 2014, Atlantic Council. URL: http://www.atlanticcouncil.
"China’s explanation for the Hong Kong protests? Blame America," By Anne Applebaum, October 3, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://wapo.st/1py9Y5S JUST LIKE PUTIN DOES, BLAME AMERICA. GEE, WHO KNEW WE WERE SO POWERFUL?? (YET WE CAN'T TAKE OUT A BUNCH OF YAHOOS IN THE DESERT??...)
"The US is slipping into a disastrous engagement against the Islamic State," By Marvin Zonis, October 3, 2014, Chicago Tribune. URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
"Big Food more effective than Big Government in tackling obesity," By Richard Williams, October 3, 2014, McClatchy-Tribune. URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
"Sentiment divided at haj pilgrimage over role of Islamist militants," By Amena Bakr, October 3, 2014, Reuters. URL:http://www.reuters.com/
"Russia ends US student exchange in part over 'friendly relations' of gay men," By Alec Luhn, October 2, 2014, Guardian. URL: http://gu.com/p/42568 WELL IF YOU DON'T WANT YOUR KIDS TO BE GAY THEN DON'T SEND THEM TO THE U.S. OBVIOUSLY. JEEZ.
"Europe, facing common jihadi threat, has no common security policy," By Matthew Schofield, October 2, 2014, McClatchy DC. URL: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
"Your baby looks like your ex? This research is scarier than Alien," By Daisy Buchanan, October 2, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/424kt YES INDEED, DAISY, YOUR BABY WITH TOM LOOKS JUST LIKE GATSBY!
"Who will win the ridesharing war? Probably not consumers," By Catherine Rampell, October 2, 2014, Washington Post. URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
"The War Nerd: Islamic State is sulking on the edge of Baghdad," By Gary Brecher, October 2, 2014, Pando Daily. URL:http://pando.com/2014/10/02/
"Putin Supports Project to ‘Secure' Russia Internet," By Andrew E. Kramer, October 2, 2014. New York Times. URL:http://huff.to/1rPXsUi
"We all know about jihadists, but what about those waging an ‘anti-jihad’?" By Karima Bennoune, October 1, 2014, Reuters. URL: http://www.reuters.com/
"The White House Could Be Made A Fortress, But Should It Be?" By Ron Elving, October 1, 2014, NPR. URL:http://n.pr/1oAUG01 THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION USED TO BE AN OPEN HOUSE PARTY... WHO COULD IMAGINE IT NOWADAYS?!
"The 9 Biggest Myths About ISIS Debunked," By Andrew Hart, October 1, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/YH0xKH
"Putin’s view of power was formed watching East Germany collapse," By Mary Elise Sarotte, October 1, 2014, Guardian. URL:
http://gu.com/p/4249a DAS IST KAPUT!
"Is The New AP U.S. History Really Anti-American?" By Emmanuel Felton, October 1, 2014, Huffington Post. URL:http://huff.to/1rM7XrO CRITICAL THINKING IS INHERENTLY ANTI-AMERICAN, DUH.
"Obamacare's First Year: How'd It Go?" By John Ydstie, October 1, 2014, NPR. URL: http://n.pr/1ozUXR2 IT WENT PRETTY F-ING WELL: I GOT HEALTH INSURANCE AND SO DID MY REPUBLICAN UNCLE T. 'NUF SAID.
"Is America on the ISIS Hit List?," By Graham Allison, September 30, 2014, The National Interest. URL:http://nationalinterest.org/
"Federalization as a ’Terrorist’ Act," By Halya Coynash, September 30, 2014, Human Rights in Ukraine. URL:http://khpg.org/index.php?id=
"Embracing Assad Is a Better Strategy for the U.S. Than Supporting the Least Bad Jihadis," By Graham E. Fuller, September 29, 2014, Huffington Post. URL: http://huff.to/1rGasf4
"Earth lost 50% of its wildlife in the past 40 years, says WWF," By Damian Carrington, September 29, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/42vvx SCARY. SCARY. DID I SAY SCARY?
"Income Inequality 2014: Ahead Of Midterm Elections, Harvard Study Says Americans Grossly Underestimate Inequality," By David Sirota, September 29, 2014, International Business Times. URL: http://www.ibtimes.com/income-
"Neoliberalism has brought out the worst in us," By Paul Verhaeghe, September 29, 2014, Guardian. URL:http://gu.com/p/42v9g
"When income growth hits a brick wall: From 1949 to 1979 over 60 percent of all income growth went to the bottom 90 percent. After that, things changed for the middle class," By MB 360, September 29, 2014. URL:http://www.mybudget360.com/
"Europe’s Austerity Zombies," By Joseph E. Stiglitz, September 26, 2014, Project Syndicate. URL: http://www.project-syndicate.
"The Economic Case for Paternity Leave," By Gwynn Guilford, September 24, 2014, The Atlantic. URL:http://www.theatlantic.com/
Friday, May 30, 2014
You have no business challenging scientists
For my conservative friends who fancy themselves level-11 paladins at Googling self-affirming summaries or excerpts of somebody's scientific articles, this article will dismay and disappoint. That's the point [emphasis mine]:
Read all the online stuff you want, Collins argues—or even read the professional scientific literature from the perspective of an outsider or amateur. You'll absorb a lot of information, but you'll still never have what he terms "interactional expertise," which is the sort of expertise developed by getting to know a community of scientists intimately, and getting a feeling for what they think."If you get your information only from the journals, you can't tell whether a paper is being taken seriously by the scientific community or not," says Collins. "You cannot get a good picture of what is going on in science from the literature," he continues. And of course, biased and ideological internet commentaries on that literature are more dangerous still.
That's why we can't listen to climate change skeptics or creationists. It's why vaccine deniers don't have a leg to stand on.
So you and I can't debate scientific research because we're not scientific experts, we're not part of the scientific community. We can only acknowledge or ignore the scientific consensus. But that's not a real debate; it's recognition vs. denial.
If you feel left out then, well, tough. That's the choice you (or your parents) made when you decided to study business or psychology instead of a higher education in a hard science. You're also left out of the NFL, NASA and a lot of other closed groups that influence your life. Deal with it. Maybe in some other group or hierarchy you're a big deal, just not in this group.
The good news is twofold. First, these guys really care about what they do; there is intense international competition and human rivalry; yes, corporations do have their say in it all; and somehow, little by little and through intense collaboration (not through "eureka" moments) scientific knowledge is advanced all the time. Indirectly, we all reap the rewards of their collective efforts.
Second, the policy debate belongs to us: we must decide what to do about the reality of man-made climate change, for example. Certainly we should consult with scientists, economists and other experts, but ultimately what we do about it is ours, a political decision.
Second, the policy debate belongs to us: we must decide what to do about the reality of man-made climate change, for example. Certainly we should consult with scientists, economists and other experts, but ultimately what we do about it is ours, a political decision.
I for one tip my hat to these scientists and don't imagine that I can tell them their business. As I've said before, if there were any justice in the world, we'd have statues dedicated to physicists instead of athletes in our cities....
By Chris Mooney
May 30, 2014 | Mother Jones
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Solution to climate change is simple, elegant
The scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, it's happening now. (Tea Party friends: don't send me an article about some scientist who stormed out of the IPCC in protest; that doesn't negate the IPCC's findings.) And the consensus of economists is that a carbon tax is the easiest and cheapest way to rectify climate change.
Why? Because of the free market, and all that. As long as there is no market for CO2, then the market can't react to it. Taxing CO2 emissions suddenly puts an economic cost on it, and then businesses can put their creative and technical genius to work at reducing their emissions, i.e. their production costs.
It's pretty simple.
By Tim Worstall
April 9, 2014 | Pando Daily
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
McAuliffe's win and Obamacare spin
Wow, the headline below is awfully ballsy spin by "Fair & Balanced" FoxNews. They're flirting with yellow journalism.
(They employ a typical FOX tactic: it's OK to write a stupid and inflammatory headline as long as it ends with a question mark. Example: "John Stossel To Sell Children's Kidneys on Free Market?").
(They employ a typical FOX tactic: it's OK to write a stupid and inflammatory headline as long as it ends with a question mark. Example: "John Stossel To Sell Children's Kidneys on Free Market?").
Let's recall that Terry McAuliffe was losing in the polls to his Republican rival Ken Cuccinelli, 38 to 40 percent, back in March. By August McAuliffe was up only 6 percentage points. His margin spiked to double-digits during the federal government shutdown, very unpopular with Virginia residents, but after the shutdown his lead returned to about only 6 points.
McAuliffe probably shouldn't have had a chance. He is a Clintonista carpetbagger who never held political office, and was tied to shady business dealings. There hasn't been a Virginia governor from the same party as the U.S. President since 1977. And McAuliffe already lost once to a popular Republican candidate for Virginia's governor.
The reason he came back and won this time? Mainly because Cuccinelli is a Tea Party kook who staked out all sorts of far-right positions on abortion, gay rights and climate science.
The reason he came back and won this time? Mainly because Cuccinelli is a Tea Party kook who staked out all sorts of far-right positions on abortion, gay rights and climate science.
As a result, pre-election polls had McAuliffe leading Cuccinelli among women voters 58 to 34 percent!
Money was certainly a factor. McAuliffe was literally a professional fundraiser, he knows how. But notably, the conservative Chamber of Commerce declined to contribute to Cuccinelli's campaign, although they kicked in $1 million for the GOP candidate Bob McDonnell last election. Why? Because Cuccinelli's too kooky.
So this election certainly was not a 'No' vote on Obamacare, it was a 'No' vote on the Tea Party. Cuccinelli became the GOP nominee through a state convention instead of the usual primary vote, where he probably would have lost to a GOP rival. The Tea Parties hijacked the convention and -- voila! -- kook for a candidate.
And so to my dear Tea Party Republicans I say, please keep doing what you're doing! You keep setting 'em up and we'll keep knocking 'em down, OK?
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Lessons from acid rain on climate change
Mother Jones recently reported:
In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to include the Acid Rain Program. The impact on the targeted pollutants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power generation, was remarkable. Between 1995 and 2011, emissions of sulfur dioxide fell by 64 percent; nitrogen oxides by 67 percent.
Despite this environmental success story, acid rain has done its work, eating away at the rock in our creeks and riverbeds. Perhaps counterintuitively, acid rain has made our waters -- including the Mississippi River -- more alkaline than acidic. Said one researcher: "The impacts are large, larger than we ever thought 50 years ago they might be."
This is why global climate change is so scary. Even when we can predict the immediate effects like drought, flooding, salination, we can't predict what will be the domino effects of man's messing with the climate, even with the best scientific models. Therefore prudence is even more necessary.
By Christopher Joyce
September 13, 2013 | NPR
URL: http://n.pr/1atN3De
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
NOAA report: 2012 warmest year ever in U.S.
It goes without saying that all 384 of these scientists, not to mention the NOAA, are on the payroll of George Soros and the global academic-climate hoax complex:
Worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to the 2012 State of the Climate report released online today by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). The peer-reviewed report, with scientists from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., serving as lead editors, was compiled by 384 scientists from 52 countries (highlights, full report). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on land, sea, ice, and sky.“Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate — carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place," said Acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Seriously though: Mom, please read this and stop assuring me the Earth is cooling: "Four major independent datasets show 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record, ranking either 8th or 9th, depending upon the dataset used. The United States and Argentina had their warmest year on record."
Sunday, June 30, 2013
One-page solution to climate change
You know why this cannot work, politically? Because it involves a tax. That's it. Economically, it makes the best sense. It wouldn't require any expensive red tape or intrusive regulation of business. Just a tax. But Americans hate the word "tax," especially new taxes, so this could never fly. Too bad.
But at least you and I know the solution. We won't let our politics make us dumber, right??....
By David Kestenbaum
June 28, 2013 | NPR
Climate change seems like this complicated problem with a million pieces. But Henry Jacoby, an economist at MIT's business school, says there's really just one thing you need to do to solve the problem: Tax carbon emissions.
"If you let the economists write the legislation," Jacoby says, "it could be quite simple." He says he could fit the whole bill on one page.
Basically, Jacoby would tax fossil fuels in proportion to the amount of carbon they release. That would make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive. That's it; that's the whole plan.
Jacoby's colleague John Reilly told me the price of gasoline might rise by 25 cents a gallon in the first year. Over time, that would increase. By 2050, Reilly figures the carbon tax would add about $1 to the price of every gallon. Across the economy, prices of energy-intensive goods and services would rise. This would encourage people and businesses to be more efficient.
This is why economists love a carbon tax: One change to the tax code and the entire economy shifts to reduce carbon emissions. No complicated regulations. No rules for what kind of gas mileage cars have to get or what specific fraction of electricity has to come from wind or solar or renewables. That's by and large the way we do it now.
Reilly says the current web of rules is a more complicated and more expensive way of getting the same outcome as a carbon tax. The current system "pretty much is one of the worst ways we could do it," he says.
As with any fix for climate change, a carbon tax would hit some people harder than others. People with long commutes would pay more. People who work in coal mines could lose their jobs.
But here is where Reilly brings up what is perhaps the most surprising thing about a carbon tax: If you do it right, he says, carbon tax can be nearly painless for the economy as a whole.
Besides reducing carbon emissions, a carbon tax brings in a bunch of money — it's a tax after all. So, Reilly says, you can reduce, say, income tax to balance out the new taxes people are paying for carbon emissions. People pay more for gas, but they get to keep more of their income.
I called around and talked to a bunch of economists about this, and they said the basic idea was sound: If you give the carbon-tax money back by cutting income taxes, you can probably offset a lot of the pain.
President Obama has indicated he would support a market-based solution to climate change. But a carbon tax would, of course, require an act of Congress. And right now, that seems unlikely.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Backyard birds augur U.S. climate change
Better late than never, here's yet more evidence of climate change, at least in the U.S.:
The Audubon Society’s estimates rest largely on data supplied by volunteers in citizen-science projects like the Christmas Bird Count (first proposed in 1900, nine years after the first known use of the word “bird-watcher,” to set the hobby apart from the more traditional Christmas pastime of shooting birds). The birds in question have shifted an average of 35 miles north over a period of about 40 years -- seemingly insignificant in human terms, but a major move ecologically.
Not a good augury!
UPDATE (06.17.2013): A recent article from New Scientist says that up to half of all bird species are threatened by climate change.
UPDATE (06.17.2013): A recent article from New Scientist says that up to half of all bird species are threatened by climate change.
By Brian Kimberling
April 19, 2013 | New York Times
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Krugman: 5 litmus tests for true conservatives?
Krugman is totally right about one's values determining one's view on the welfare state. (I would say it's more a question of aesthetics.) It's not something you can really debate. Believe me, I've tried.
There really are people who believe in the "work or starve" / "let the devil take the hindmost" philosophy of social Darwinism, and they make up about 20 percent of the U.S. population and the core of the Tea Parties and Republican Party.
When it comes to the general welfare, they are not interested in outcomes, but rather in ideology, in establishing ideal, Randian rules of the game that don't impede the unlimited accumulation of wealth with no responsibility to give anything back. For them that belief is ironclad; it's beyond argument.
Krugman offers 5 issues, on the other hand, that do hinge on results, on empirical evidence. One side is definitely right or wrong. For these issues it's not a question of values or what's "right," but rather what's provably correct. Krugman observes that while liberals can and do disagree on these 5 issues, and still call themselves liberal without suffering ideological exile, conservatives must answer a certain way on all 5 or else be confined to an ideological reservation for "RINOs."
By Paul Krugman
May 25, 2013 | New York Times
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Amphibians dying from pesticides, fertilizers, climate change
This is not good. Amphibians are like canaries in a coal mine for the environment, since they cannot regulate their temperature and absorb everything into their skin.
This just goes to show, once again, that our actions can have unintended consequences. What's good for people and businesses in the short run could kill us in the long run.
We rely on scientific research to show us the way.
By Darryl Fears
May 23, 2013 | Washington Post
Friday, March 15, 2013
Forget global environmental 'tipping point'
Never let it be said I'm some kind of eco-hack. I'm pro-science all the way, wherever that leads us. This does not mean that climate change isn't a threat -- it is -- it just demands a more nuanced, localized view of the problem. Making bold, broad claims that global events will not bear out will not help the environmentalists' cause. If environmentalists and conservationists subjugate themselves to good science then they can never be wrong. The good news is that good science is on their side, as long as they don't stray from it.
By Erle C. Ellis
March 11, 2013 | New Scientist
How much can our poor Earth take? We've already transformed most of the biosphere beyond anything our early ancestors could have imagined, clearing, ploughing, burning, building, damming, domesticating, driving to extinction, dousing with chemicals and even changing the climate. Surely at some point, the biosphere will simply collapse in the face of such a massive and unrelenting onslaught.
Or will it? This is a question that inspires intense debate among ecologists and global change scientists. Some say that we are heading rapidly for a global tipping point – a threshold beyond which the entire biosphere will shift into a new and mostly undesired state. Others, like me, are convinced that no theoretical or empirical evidence exists for such a claim, and that a widespread belief in the existence of such a point of no return threatens to push ecological science and its application in the wrong direction.
Let us examine the evidence. Ecologists have long been aware that tipping points exist in local and regional ecosystems. For example, when nutrients are added to a lake, its ecological properties tend to continue as before until the lake suddenly shifts to a new state. The water changes from clear to turbid; communities of plants, fish and other species change almost completely. Shifting the lake back into its previous state is possible, but requires massive efforts.
Among other examples of local and regional tipping points are the rapid collapse of coral reefs in the face of rising ocean acidity and the transformation of ecosystems by the extinction of a dominant species, or the introduction of a new one.
With such strong evidence of tipping points in regional ecosystems, why wouldn't we expect such tipping points to exist in the biosphere as a whole? Examine the mechanisms that produce tipping points, and the answer becomes clear.
Tipping points happen when the components of a system respond gradually to an external force until a level of change is reached at which the response becomes non-linear and synergistic. This amplifies the effect of the force and rapidly drives the system into a new state.
To respond in this way, systems must meet certain requirements. Either external forces are applied uniformly and each part of the system responds in the same way, or the system must be highly interconnected to allow synergistic responses to emerge. Or both.
Do these criteria apply to the biosphere as a whole? I think not. For planetary tipping points to exist, the forces of humanity would need to act uniformly across the planet, all ecosystems would need to respond to them in the same way, and the response would need to be transmitted rapidly across Earth's many ecosystems and continents.
Even the force of human-induced climate change, so evident across the planet, does not meet these requirements. For example, it warms and dries some regions while cooling and moistening others. Even if it did uniformly heat Earth's ecosystems, this would not produce a coherent global shift in ecology because local ecosystems respond so differently, often in opposing ways.
Finally, organisms and ecosystems in different biomes and on different continents are not strongly connected. Animals, plants and microorganisms are limited in their interactions by distance and barriers such as oceans and mountain ranges. Even with human-induced species invasions, there is no species capable of colonising all of Earth's biomes – not even the mighty cockroach.
So there is little chance of anthropogenic climate change leading to a global tipping point in the biosphere. When it comes to other changes, including land use, habitat fragmentation and extinction, the case for a global tipping point is even weaker.
How, then, does the biosphere as a whole respond to human pressures? To put it simply: every ecosystem changes in its own way. We are driving massive long-term changes in the ecology of our planet, one ecosystem, one community, one species at a time. The biosphere's response to human pressures is merely the sum of all of the changes.
Viewing things this way puts the emphasis back where it belongs: on understanding and managing ecosystems at the local and regional level.While we must continue to think and act globally, it is the local and regional levels that are the key for conservation and management.
To deny the likelihood of an impending global tipping point is not to deny that we are transforming the biosphere profoundly and permanently in ways that are likely to disgrace us in the eyes of future generations. Much of our planet's ecology can and will be lost unless we focus much greater effort on conserving and restoring it.
With this in mind, the concept of a global tipping point has major policy implications. It suggests that below some threshold nothing serious will happen, but after that all will be lost. Holding such a view risks breeding complacency on one side and hopelessness on the other. Both are misplaced: to lose even one species is more than we should accept lightly. The same holds for our local ecosystems. To conserve them is to conserve the biosphere.
The claim that the biosphere is approaching a global tipping point remains no more than a contested and untested hypothesis. As we strive towards more sustainable stewardship of our planet, we must think globally – but let us not lose track of problems on smaller scales. The fate of the entire biosphere depends on it.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Study: Top predators affect climate
It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences:
Trisha Atwood of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, studied the effect of removing predator fish from ponds and rivers in Canada and Costa Rica. Across a range of ecosystems, climates and predators, she found a consistent pattern: carbon dioxide emissions typically increased more than tenfold after the predators were removed."It looks like predators in many types of ecosystems – marine and terrestrial as well as freshwater – can play a very big role in global climate change," she told New Scientist.
When we start unbalancing the natural order, either out of ignorance or hubris, we can't always predict what will happen. Hence conservation is inherently a "safe bet" for humanity, it is for the good even if we can't predict exactly why.
By Fred Pearce
February 17, 2013 | New Scientist
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Exposé: $118 million funneled to climate change deniers!
So here is the real "climate change conspiracy," and it's not about a bunch of scientists who already have tenured jobs at universities, NASA and NOAA "cashing in" on their "biased" climate science.
The real conspiracy is these so-called "donor-advised funds" secretively distributing $118 million to 102 U.S. climate-change deniers, who, as a rule, do not produce fresh scientific data but merely muddy the waters by misinterpreting others' studies, or doing selective meta-analysis. This is not to mention the $ millions that Exxon, the Koch brothers, et al spend openly every year on denying climate change.
So obviously, if your aim is to get rich on bad science, it's more profitable to be a climate-change denier.
By Suzanne Goldenberg
February 14, 2013 | Guardian
Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.
The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.
Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.
"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.
By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. "It won't be going to liberals."
[...]
By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118m distributed to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.
The money flowed to Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.
[...]
The rise of that movement is evident in the funding stream. In 2002, the two trusts raised less than $900,000 for the anti-climate cause. That was a fraction of what Exxon Mobil or the conservative oil billionaire Koch brothers donated to climate sceptic groups that year.
By 2010, the two Donor Trusts between them were channelling just under $30m to a host of conservative organisations opposing climate action or science. That accounted to 46% of all their grants to conservative causes, according to the Greenpeace analysis.
The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one.
"There is plenty of money coming from elsewhere," said John Mashey, a retired computer executive who has researched funding for climate contrarians. "Focusing on the Kochs gets things confused. You can not ignore the Kochs. They have their fingers in too many things, but they are not the only ones."
It is also possible the Kochs continued to fund their favourite projects using the anonymity offered by Donor Trust. [...]
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Sandy relief vote shows the New GOP's true colors
You can criticize 67 "No" votes in the House of Representatives -- all Republicans -- against the Superstorm Sandy relief bill that passed unanimously in the Senate on a few grounds. Take your pick:
Man-made global warming. Total free-market fail: we're consuming too much, using too many fossil fuels, and Sandy is the blowback (pun intended). How are free enterprise and hands-off government supposed to deal with this? Republicans' reply: they're not. Learn to swim. That goes for your house and belongings, too.
If, "You made your bed [by consuming too much], now swim in it," was their answer, I might give them some points for scientific principle, but that's not their point of view. In their world, free markets are supposed to fix everything.
Not MMGW. Ditto the above. Although we didn't do anything wrong and burning everything we can dig out of the ground has no effect on our climate, nevertheless, the climate inextricably smacked us down and it's beyond the power of rugged individualists or "free markets" to fix the damage in a time frame and a cost that's allocable and acceptable. So then what? [Crickets chirping.]
Government exists to keep us safe. So... a super storm that knocks out basic services in the Center of the Universe, New York City, doesn't meet that standard? So WTF is government for then? To dole out radio spectrum frequencies to Clear Channel?
So by Republicans' logic and ours, opposing relief for victims of Sandy makes no sense. So what is their logic, if any? It's simple: government shouldn't do jack, ever, except fight the Nazis and maybe some bearded baddies who live in caves 5,000 miles away. Er, uh... just like the Founding Fathers wanted.
Even the next GOP Presidential nominee unloaded on Speaker Boehner and the House GOP for its failure to act.
This is an object lesson, folks. The GOP is being taken over by a "devil-take-the-hindmost" philosophy, otherwise known as libertarianism. (But with the 2 P's -- pot and prostitution -- to make it make this jagged pill more palatable to youths and corporate hotshots.) Don't be fooled!
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Jeremy Rifkin on the 3rd Industrial Revolution
Jeremy Rifkin, a professor at Wharton business school, gives longer and shorter versions of this presentation on the Third Industrial Revolution that's coming (or already starting). This is a longer one from 2010, still current, covering pretty much everything. You can find shorter ones on YouTube, the gist is the same.
You can focus on the scary parts of his presentation, like this:
"We human beings, we are the youngest species in the evolutionary neighborhood.... Anatomically modern human beings have been here only 175,000 years. We make up only one-half of one percent of the entire living biomass of the earth. One-half of one percent. Right now this afternoon we are using 24 percent of all the photosynthesis of the earth. And we're heading from 6.8 to nearly 10 billion people. We're monsters. We're devouring this earth, and it's probably going to lead to our extinction unlesse we turn this around quickly. This is just not sustainable by any reckoning."
... or this:
...or this:"... in 1980 that was the first time we mentioned climate change.... And we continued to underestimate the speed and accelaration of climate change, all of us, for 30 years, because we can't anticipate all the feedback loops. That's what's terrifying us right now."
"So our scientists say that we may see a 3 degree Celsius rise in temperature on Earth in this century. It could go much higher. That's a middle, negotiated scenario. But to put this in perspective, if we only go up 3 degrees, it takes us back to the temperature on earth 3 million years ago in the Pliocene. Different flora, different fauna, different ecosystems. And here's the key, that I wish Al Gore and others had talked about in their public campaigns. It is all about water. This is really all about the water. The hydrological cycle. And that is for every 1 degree Celsius that the temperature rises on this planet, the atmosphere absorbs 7 percent more precipitation from the ground. That's the key. That means the whole water cycle shifts: more floods, more droughts, more periods of infrequent rain. And so ecosystems that were developed over eons of time cannot adjust to this disruptive change in the hydrological cycle.If we go 2-3 degrees, which is looking awfully optimistic, our scientists say we could lose between 23-24 percent of all the assessed species on Earth by the end of this century -- your kids' lifetime -- and on the upper end 70 percent or more extinction -- in the lifetime of babies who are here now."
... or the more hopeful, pragmatic parts:
"Peak oil, peak globalization, accelerating climate change. What do we do? What do we do? What we need now is a new economic vision, a new economic game plan that is powerful enough, practical, can be implemented in less than 40 years, and can move us to a complete post-carbon era by mid-century. Nothing short of that will do. And we have to do it now, because the window is narrowing every year."So we stepped back and we asked how did the great economic revolutions in history occur? That will give us a cue, as to what we need to do. The great economic revolutions in history occur, I believe, when two things come together. First, we change the way we organize energy on the earth. And we've done that many times. When we create new energy regimes, they make possible more complex civilizations. When that happens, it requires a communication revolution agile enough to manage these complex new energy regimes. When energy revolutions converge with communication revolutions, they change economic history. They change temporal and spacial orientation. They change the way we set up our living environments. As the Germans say, they change gestalt. And they change consciousness. Fundamentally."
Most interesting is his far-ranging review of human civilization to-date, when he describes how new economic forms required new communications methods and new consciousness in order "to extend empathy to cover new temporal-spacial boundaries."
Empathy is what he calls "the social glue." It's what organizes us, allowing us to live and work together. Empathy has so far extended from mythological-blood ties --> to theological-religion --> to ideological-nation states --> and now to psychological-modern. Rifkin wonders if empathy could extend to cover every human being on the planet within two generations?
This would sound like a lot of Kumbaya-hippie claptrap if it weren't so thoroughly and convincingly argued.
Without much fanfare in the media, the EU has committed to a Five-Pillar Infrastructure to build a new energy-communications economy. Rifkin advises them on their strategy. According to him, for us to survive, the future must be "flat, collaborative, and distributive" -- including our sources of energy. (Fast forward to 31:00 to hear Rifkin's explanation of "distributive energies.") It may seem risible now to think Europe will follow through, what with all their debt problems, but then again, if Rifkin is right, they can't afford not to. Neither can the U.S.
Uploaded by Green Home TV
April 26, 2011 | YouTube
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)